Case 2303791/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Iwobi v City of London Academies Trust — 2025

Case reference: 2303791/2024
Decision date: 28 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hart
Panel members: Ms Mitchell, Ms Cook

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Iwobi

Respondent

City of London Academies Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's complaints of detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure, and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, were not well-founded and were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, harassment related to race, harassment related to age, and victimisation. The written judgment records the outcomes only; reasons were given orally and no remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Complaints of detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Age discrimination	Complaints of direct age discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Age	—
Harassment	Complaints of harassment related to race were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Complaints of harassment related to age were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Age	—
Victimisation	Complaints of victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.